Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Necessity, properly construed (as in Leibniz's critique of Descartes), requires truth in all possible worlds including those where God wills differently.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
This view makes God's will subordinate to logical laws, contradicting divine aseity and absolute sovereignty.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If necessary truths exist independently of God, they become a co-eternal principle limiting God's creativity and freedom.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Descartes' position (God wills even logical truths) preserves God's absolute transcendence better than Leibniz's.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Logical truths (like 2+2=4) remain true regardless of divine will, suggesting necessity transcends God's power.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If God could make contradictions true, 'omnipotence' becomes meaningless; necessity constrains even infinite power.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Leibniz correctly distinguished between absolute necessity (metaphysical) and contingency (dependent on God's choice).
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.